The unfortunate truth is that drum covers, including those that do not include the source track, are a violation of copyright in 90% of the world's countries. Even more unfortunate is that telling you how to avoid Google's audio fingerprint detection algorithm is a criminal offense in my jurisdiction.

Suggested 'legal' alternatives:
1: License the material
2: Create your own material
3: Limit your DC's to material that is public-domain, CC, or other copyleft license
4: Post to a jurisdiction without draconian copyright laws.
5: Draft legislation to give 'drum covers' a protected status under the fair-use clause of your jurisdiction's copyright laws, and have it voted in.

What puzzles me is that there are different warnings that come up some are just blocked in certain countries, some say contains copyright material and allows it, others get blocked in their entirety. Add to all that some of these songs have already been covered without any issue.

It has taken me ages to manage to actually create and put up some videos, and now this. It just makes me want to give up, I have spent along time creating these and its taken me months to learn how to achieve it with relatively little cost - now they are getting pulled.

Why do human beings persist in the continual mindless persecution of themselves.

Why do human beings persist in the continual mindless persecution of themselves.

In this instance, it is to "promote the useful arts". Copyright exists so that artists are compensated for works for a limited period of time. This is certainly a righteous ideal.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost "artists" and "limited period of time", and replaced them with "Media conglomerates" and "Forever". We replaced 'copy' with 'use'. We replaced civil torts with criminal violations.

In this instance, it is to "promote the useful arts". Copyright exists so that artists are compensated for works for a limited period of time. This is certainly a righteous ideal.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost "artists" and "limited period of time", and replaced them with "Media conglomerates" and "Forever". We replaced 'copy' with 'use'. We replaced civil torts with criminal violations.

Agreed 100%. Copyright is a very important concept. Like patents. Otherwise, why would artists and inventors create new things if they can't profit from them? Unfortunately it is a blunt instrument that's now interpreted very cynically indeed...

Drum covers are one of those legal grey areas, really. You can claim fair use as a defence after the fact in the US - maybe go down that route. Alternatively, put them up as de-listed, turn off monetisation and put the links on the forum directly.

I had a copyright claim years ago on a cover I did of a song (that had no pre-existing material from the song in it - I'd just covered the guitar part alone and it used completely different effects) and I had a copyright claim. YouTube requested that I acknowledge the copyright claim, I did and a small link to the original was put under the video so that people could view the 'official' version and/or buy it. It was demonetised (I wasn't planning on making money from it anyway) and I've never had a problem with it since. Put that video up in 2009...

It wouldn't bother me other than the material I used was taken directly from youtube and therefore free to copy anyway using one of the hundreds of free converter sites.

Plus I have created a less useable version if it which is then taken down.

By downloading it from YouTube you have created a 'new' copy of it - which is in and of itself a copyright violation in most jurisdictions. Those downloader sites are not necessarily on the right side of the law and one or two of them now automatically block any downloading of a video that contains music.

The original uploader is probably in breach of copyright and you are doubly in breach of copyright - by first creating a new copy and then re-distributing it.

Usually if you don't try to "financially gain" from the posting of your video, then you are free to use the material. So if when you upload the video, you say you don't want to monetize the video, it usually gets through without issue.

You have obviously never created anything or had it stolen. I think copyright laws should be strengthened, and violators should go to jail. YouTube should be sued for trillions of dollars and Google should be put out of business. Their entire business is built on the backs of others' creations.

By downloading it from YouTube you have created a 'new' copy of it - which is in and of itself a copyright violation in most jurisdictions. Those downloader sites are not necessarily on the right side of the law and one or two of them now automatically block any downloading of a video that contains music.

The original uploader is probably in breach of copyright and you are doubly in breach of copyright - by first creating a new copy and then re-distributing it.

Bingo! ^^^^hit the nail on the head. It's a violation of copyright to download and convert. Just because it's on youtube does not make it an open license for use.

Usually if you don't try to "financially gain" from the posting of your video, then you are free to use the material. So if when you upload the video, you say you don't want to monetize the video, it usually gets through without issue.

This usually works for me. I clearly state in the description that I own no rights to the track being used and I get a message saying I been allowed to use the material with no monetary gain and the video may contain adds. But it may be blocked in some country's. It seems funny to me that in the 80's one kid on the block would buy a Artist Cassette Tape and everybody else would dub that record on a dual tray cassette player. Next thing you know everyone in school has all the new music on a Memorex Tape. And that was fine and dandy, but come along CD's and Internet and you do virtually the same thing and it's illegal.

It seems funny to me that in the 80's one kid on the block would buy a Artist Cassette Tape and everybody else would dub that record on a dual tray cassette player. Next thing you know everyone in school has all the new music on a Memorex Tape. And that was fine and dandy, but come along CD's and Internet and you do virtually the same thing and it's illegal.

First of all, copying cassettes was ALSO illegal. Secondly, the copy was not IDENTICAL in quality. The copy was already third generation. Suggesting that digital copies are virtually the same thing is completely erroneous.

Copyrighting is like plagiarism-in that many people just don't get it. You have to give people their due. In academia it's a huge problem-people are of the mindset-"if it's online it's free"-like it's the wild west! The problem is fighting these battles is expensive-and you can be like SONY with right on your side and win the battle only to lose the war. Now I play along and record myself playing to copyrighted materials-mainly because the drumless tracks often suck-but I'm not going to gain-if anything I should pay people to listen lol. I also find the fact that something is "illegal" is even worth comment-since now we see many laws ignored and anarchy-not trying to light a political match-just the ole moral relativism argument-"well so and so does it" (I hate that crap).

A few years back Garth Brooks, country star, wanted to make it illegal to sell used records. I'm sure he meant in a retail setting. He finally admitted that it wouldn't work since there were used car lots, used appliance store, second hand clothing stores etc. School kids copying cassettes was low key and low percentage compared to the almost instant, high quality, downloading of music, movies, on the internet. I looked for but couldn't find a recent article of Google/YouTube crack down on just this very thing.

I think copyright laws should be strengthened, and violators should go to jail.

I think that this illustrates a wonderful point for the OP and everyone else.

There are creators among us that believe that violators should be imprisoned. There are creators among us that want to extend copyright to govern a work's use (i.e.: GB saying that you have no right of first sale). There are also creators among us that want to abolish public domain, and to make it a crime to release art under permissive licenses. There are creators among us who wish to abolish the US Library system so that we are not able to borrow CD's from our local library. There are creators among us that want to punish other countries with economic sanctions that do not submit to the US's implementation of copyright.

It's important we understand these positions, because they have deep pockets and a lot of momentum behind it in government, despite being completely contrary to copyright's original intent. Draw-a-mouse/go-to-jail is exactly the opposite of promoting the useful arts.

Personally, I do not believe that the OP should go to jail for posting a PJ drum cover on youtube. While I do believe that artists should be granted an exclusive monopoly for a limited duration, under no circumstances should CR holders control 'use', else we end up in a situation where it is a crime to listen to Christian Rock on the sabbath or other similar nonsense.

@Destroyer -- The quality of the copy is arbitrary. The only fair use exclusions for tape were... You can record radio broadcasts for personal re-listening (no redistribution or rebroadcast) and under certain circumstances you can transfer the media if the original is suffering from mechanical failure (you need to keep the failing original).

@DSOP -- Sorry to use you as an example, but your reply perfectly captured the spirit of the counter-argument with "violators should go to jail".

I am fairly happy that what I am doing will not land me in any trouble, I am an amateur player who has already purchased the material I play to on CD years ago, so have paid my 2 cents - plus I am just covering songs for fun. I have done a handful and clearly seek to make no profit.

Its just frustrating to me, if anything I can promote the original song with the handful of views I do get and I am not claiming any rights to it.

I am in the UK and when I upload my settings are already correct to me, as in I can't make it any better with ticking boxes to de monetize as they are already unticked against the monetize box.

I have found some other tunes that have been covered and already have plenty of uploads and am currently uploading these to see what happens.

Touchy subject for sure. I was the music librarian in college (70's) - and was given the frantic order one day to go thru it all and remove all copies as ASCAP/BMI was coming to inspect. The school would purchase the music and make copies 'cause the kids would lose whole folders of music.

At the same time - gigging in the 60's we shared records to learn tunes - then performed copyrighted material for profit. In the 70's-80's - virtually every band i played with shared cassettes of set lists to new members.

Been on both sides - but i've respected the copyrights religiously since napster ...

So here's the rub...Google can do what they want, be it collect your data and sell it for major profit. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can opt out, but good luck with that. They then take copyrighted music and sell commercials with it. Then lecture on the rules when you trying to post a video to ask what am I doing wrong! If you play cover songs in a bar, the bartender makes money and if it's a respectable joint, they will pay you for the effort. Not once have I seen a bar owner track songs to pay ASCAP fees. If my church on the other hand, plays a worship song, they have to pay royalties to the record companies.

I in no way suggest the unlawful obtaining of any copyrighted material, but the whole what's legal and what's not part is super slanted.

If a TV show or commercial is playing music, you can bet they belong to ASCAP or have paid royalties. Bars are supposed to pay a fee to have cover bands. If you close you will see a decal on the juke box where the vending company has paid it's fees. The bar owner plays a flat fee for this, not per song. One of my friends, a rep for Big Bang and other drum companies just lost a great gig because the owner decided to no longer pay the fee. He had the gig for a while and had a great following. I think the "what's legal and what's not" has issues and I'm sure plenty get away with it. I've had Youtube vids blocked. You tube is only protecting themselves from lawsuits, not censoring you. I am going to spend some time today and find that article where they said they were going to crack down. In the mean time use songs that have already become public domain.

I think what the issue is for Dizeee, and myself as well, is that there have been "drum covers" of copyrighted tunes probably since day one. Many of these are almost studio quality in their production with HD video. Many if these sights generate money for their owners through subscribers etc. and none of them seem to be affected to any great degree by "copyright" issues (at least not to the naked eye). Even if they post something stating they are not doing it for commercial purposes...they still seem to generate income via advertising and subscriptions. I may be wrong, but on the surface at least it seems pretty close to what is happening.

Now, along cones a guy like Dizeee or me who just wants to share their playing with some friends using a backing track to do it...and...BAM! The "copyright" shields go up. Doesn't matter that anyone with a 1/4 of a functioning brain understands what is going on, and that no one is trying to "pull anything" or profit off another's work-the cover gets pulled....

That is what I think has Dizzeee (and myself honestly) a littled "upset". We have no intention of stealing anything or taking any credit for anything, while there are other drummers out there racking up subscribers and getting away with it. Fair is fair and all that...

I feel the same way Mongrel, I just dont get it. I have a few friends (my kids as well) that enjoy my video's, hell even my Mother. Watching Y.T Drum Covers is what helped me get going again after not sitting behind a kit for 20 years. Now I am doing it more so to get good at recording. What is the harm, but we are in a small group here. A lot of people despise drum cover's for what ever reason. I can post a drum cover on here and it may get 100 views on the forum but only around 10 views on the actual video. If I am going to open up and read a thread I sure as heck am going to take a minute of my time and watch the video. I like to watch other people play, for me its a good way to learn and to give a little support to another Drummer. I am never to good to do that.

For me, I am more interested in getting feedback on my playing, mostly from a creative standpoint and "groove". I am not interested in doing note-for-note covers and showing how well I can copy a drum part at this point.

What I really enjoy is putting drums to music that has no drums, folk tunes, or whatever. But I have even had those blocked.

What I was able to do was turn the volume of the "cover tune" way down and play over that. Just enough that when tbe drum volume drops you can hear the tune in the background... It allows the listener to know if I am on track with the tune or not.

I think what the issue is for Dizeee, and myself as well, is that there have been "drum covers" of copyrighted tunes probably since day one. Many of these are almost studio quality in their production with HD video. Many if these sights generate money for their owners through subscribers etc. and none of them seem to be affected to any great degree by "copyright" issues (at least not to the naked eye). Even if they post something stating they are not doing it for commercial purposes...they still seem to generate income via advertising and subscriptions. I may be wrong, but on the surface at least it seems pretty close to what is happening.

Now, along cones a guy like Dizeee or me who just wants to share their playing with some friends using a backing track to do it...and...BAM! The "copyright" shields go up. Doesn't matter that anyone with a 1/4 of a functioning brain understands what is going on, and that no one is trying to "pull anything" or profit off another's work-the cover gets pulled....

That is what I think has Dizzeee (and myself honestly) a littled "upset". We have no intention of stealing anything or taking any credit for anything, while there are other drummers out there racking up subscribers and getting away with it. Fair is fair and all that...

If a TV show or commercial is playing music, you can bet they belong to ASCAP or have paid royalties. Bars are supposed to pay a fee to have cover bands. If you close you will see a decal on the juke box where the vending company has paid it's fees. The bar owner plays a flat fee for this, not per song. One of my friends, a rep for Big Bang and other drum companies just lost a great gig because the owner decided to no longer pay the fee. He had the gig for a while and had a great following. I think the "what's legal and what's not" has issues and I'm sure plenty get away with it. I've had Youtube vids blocked. You tube is only protecting themselves from lawsuits, not censoring you. I am going to spend some time today and find that article where they said they were going to crack down. In the mean time use songs that have already become public domain.

We had a nice Jazz Jam going at a coffee shop here. Sunday early evenings. It was mainly for the youngsters in the near by high school Jazz program, although there were some graduates of the program that had gone on to college music programs along with some of us old heads. Then the owner gets the letter from ASCAP.

It seems that ASCAP got wind of things from the facebook event pages that said for potential participants to bring Realbook I and II. The owner initially wanted to continue on but later decided against it. It would have been a pretty good hit to her financially. ASCAP had no legally recognizable proof that would stand up in court at that point as they had yet to visit the venue.

Nobody was arguing against copyright protection but it was sad that we lost this nice little learning opportunity. It was the only music that the shop had.

The record companies copyright the stuff and YouTube have an algorithm that detects it and does that. Think of the app shazam.

Some people will eq the song slightly different or pitch shift it to change it enough it isn't detected. This can get you into trouble though and I don't recommend or condone doing this.

Other record companies will let you post, but you get an popup you accept that it is copyright materials, and that the owner of the material is going to put ads on your video and they receive the profits. I have done this several times.

3. Don't try to monetize other peoples material as it will be blocked right away.

I would be happy to watch people cover my bands songs on YouTube. I am not happy when our albums end up on every torrent site in the world. I guess different people have different opinions and feelings on this. What I don't want to see is someone make money off an ad when I try to click on my owns band's song on YouTube.